tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Lab Anal. 2017 Apr 13. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22234. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test.[/h] Ryu SW[SUP]1[/SUP], Suh IB[SUP]1[/SUP], Ryu SM[SUP]2[/SUP], Shin KS[SUP]3[/SUP], Kim HS[SUP]4[/SUP], Kim J[SUP]5[/SUP], Uh Y[SUP]5[/SUP], Yoon KJ[SUP]5[/SUP], Lee JH[SUP]5[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs were BUDDI, Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescence Immunoassay, Veritor System Flu A+B assay. One conventional test was the SD Bioline Influenza Ag A/B/A(H1N1/2009). All test results were compared with those from the Anyplex Flu A/B Typing Real-time Detection real-time PCR. The four RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs within other respiratory viruses was identified.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] For influenza A, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 87.7%, 94.5%, 87.7%, and 72.6% sensitivity, and 100%, 97.7%, 96.5%, and 100% specificity. For influenza B, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 81.7%, 91.7%, 81.7%, and 78.3% sensitivity, and 100%, 95.3%, 100%, and 100% specificity, respectively. Each RIDT could detect diluted NIBSC solution, according to the level of dilution and specific influenza subtypes. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs with other respiratory viruses was not noted.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] Sofia showed the highest sensitivity for influenza A and B detection. BUDDI and Veritor showed higher detection sensitivity than a conventional RIDT for influenza A detection, but similar results for influenza B detection. Further study is needed to compare the test performance of RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.
? 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] digital readout system; influenza; rapid influenza diagnostic test; sensitivity; specificity
PMID: 28407318 DOI: 10.1002/jcla.22234
[h=1]Comparison of three rapid influenza diagnostic tests with digital readout systems and one conventional rapid influenza diagnostic test.[/h] Ryu SW[SUP]1[/SUP], Suh IB[SUP]1[/SUP], Ryu SM[SUP]2[/SUP], Shin KS[SUP]3[/SUP], Kim HS[SUP]4[/SUP], Kim J[SUP]5[/SUP], Uh Y[SUP]5[/SUP], Yoon KJ[SUP]5[/SUP], Lee JH[SUP]5[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) show variable sensitivities in clinical settings. We aimed to compare three digital RIDTs and one conventional RIDT.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We assessed 218 nasopharyngeal swabs from patients between neonates and 90 years old in 2016. Three digital RIDTs were BUDDI, Sofia Influenza A+B Fluorescence Immunoassay, Veritor System Flu A+B assay. One conventional test was the SD Bioline Influenza Ag A/B/A(H1N1/2009). All test results were compared with those from the Anyplex Flu A/B Typing Real-time Detection real-time PCR. The four RIDTs were tested with diluted solutions from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to compare lower detection limit. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs within other respiratory viruses was identified.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] For influenza A, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 87.7%, 94.5%, 87.7%, and 72.6% sensitivity, and 100%, 97.7%, 96.5%, and 100% specificity. For influenza B, BUDDI, Sofia, Veritor, and Bioline showed 81.7%, 91.7%, 81.7%, and 78.3% sensitivity, and 100%, 95.3%, 100%, and 100% specificity, respectively. Each RIDT could detect diluted NIBSC solution, according to the level of dilution and specific influenza subtypes. Cross-reactivity of four RIDTs with other respiratory viruses was not noted.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] Sofia showed the highest sensitivity for influenza A and B detection. BUDDI and Veritor showed higher detection sensitivity than a conventional RIDT for influenza A detection, but similar results for influenza B detection. Further study is needed to compare the test performance of RIDTs according to specific, prevalent influenza subtypes.
? 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] digital readout system; influenza; rapid influenza diagnostic test; sensitivity; specificity
PMID: 28407318 DOI: 10.1002/jcla.22234